The Principles of Political Economy

Henry Sidgwick

Book III

Chapter VII

ECONOMIC DISTRIBUTION.

§3. The most extreme means which have been proposed for
equalizing distribution are the systems commonly designated by the
terms ``Communism'' and ``Socialism''; which involve either the almost
entire abolition of private property, or its restriction to consumers'
wealth. These terms, however, and especially the adjectives
Communistic and Socialistic, are also used more widely to describe the
general principle of any modes of governmental interference which have
for their object the attainment of the same result in a more partial
way. This practice appears to me convenient; but in order to prevent
vagueness it will be well to give each of the terms as precise a
signification as possible, without deviating materially from ordinary
usage.

Of the two terms `Socialism' is the more comprehensive: Communism being
generally regarded as an extreme form of Socialism, in which the most
thorough-going antagonism to the institution of private property is
manifested. It would, however, be hardly convenient to restrict the
term Communism to systems involving the complete abolition of this
institution; since no one, I suppose, has ever seriously recommended
that (e.g.) a man should not have private property in his clothes. I
think therefore that the most useful way in which we can employ the
terms Communism and Communistic, without deviating materially from
ordinary usage, is to restrict them to those schemes or measures of
governmental interference for equalizing distribution which discard or
override the principle that a labourer's remuneration should be
proportioned to the value of his labour.

The proposal to organize society on a Communistic plan, so as to
distribute the annual produce of the labour and capital of the
community either in equal shares, or in shares varying not according
to the deserts but according to the needs of the recipient, is one of
which the serious interest has now passed away; though a generation
ago it had not a few adherents, and was supported with earnestness and
ability by more than one competent writer. And, notwithstanding what
has been urged in the preceding section, the proposition that a
Communistic distribution would produce more happiness than the present
system, if it could be realized without materially affecting
production, or removing needful checks to population, is at any rate a
very plausible one. But even if it were completely true I cannot doubt
that the removal of the normal stimulus to labour (bodily and
intellectual) and to care, which the present individualistic system
supplies, would so much reduce the whole produce to be divided, that
any advantage derived from greater economy of distribution would be
decidedly outweighed---even supposing that no material change took
place in population. Probably few of my readers will dispute this; but
I may suggest to any one who is inclined to doubt it, to compare the
average energy and perseverance in labour displayed by even
respectable and conscientious rich persons, even when they select
their own work, with the average energy and perseverance of
professional men.

If this objection be allowed to be decisive, there will be no
necessity to raise the very uninviting ethical questions which would
be inevitably presented by the practical problem of preventing too
great increase of population in a communistic society. I do not indeed
regard this problem as insoluble; but I do not see how the
difficulties in which it is involved are to be overcome without such a
revolution in the traditional habits and sentiments regulating the
relations of the sexes as no thoughtful person could contemplate
without alarm and, disquiet.

The definition of Communism, as above laid down, is tolerably
distinct; and it enables us to give a definite significance to the
adjective `communistic', in its wider application to denote the
tendency of minor governmental interferences. That is, we shall
classify as communistic any law or institution by which a portion of
the aggregate produce of a community is, by the agency of Government,
distributed to individuals according to considerations of Need,
without regard to their Deserts or previous services. For instance,
according to this definition, the English Poor-Law is communistic in
its effects---though not, perhaps, in its principle. So again, public
roads, parks, libraries, churches, &c., so far as they are freely used
by persons who are not taxed for their maintenance, must be called
communistic; though, as we shall hereafter (§ 6) notice, the bad
effects of communism are thought to be avoided or outweighed in these
cases.